Final Essay: Digital Technology

Final Essay: Digital Technology Nadine Saba Digital technologies have allowed any member of society to participate in the evolving world of the internet. Through social media websites, file sharing, and more, the internet has opened up the doors to creation, connection, collaboration and participation. Within our use of digital and social media lies a paradox; on one hand, we have the potential to create, communicate and express ourselves with the use of digital technology while on the other, we are constantly being tracked and watched. We are in the age of self-generated content where we hold a certain degree of control over what we produce and consume. The tools used to produce content today are much cheaper, even free at times, than ever before, which allow the line between amateurs and professionals to be blurred. The public has never encountered such opportunities to create, connect, collaborate and participate regarding the content we consume. The ability of sharing self-generated content is an aspect of the paradox of digital culture. With the increase of the production of content by consumers, content-sharing websites are proving popular with internet users. Jeff Howe states there are more people producing than consuming content; he refers to them as prosumers and argues that crowdsourcing is the driving force of the internet. (Howe, p.4) He adds that this open source movement began as an act of rebellion against corporate power. The public is not forced to sit back and be presented with content to consume. Henry Jenkins also discusses the reasons behind the prosumer movement; consumers are fighting for the right to participate more fully in their culture, to control the flow of media in their lives and to talk back to the mass market content (Jenkins, p.37). With more tools to create and collaborate, we are taking hold of the power held by 1

corporations. It is refreshing to allow the public control over what they consume, rather than be subjected to programs on television made by corporations. There are many independent filmmakers who use YouTube as a means to reach an audience and gain exposure. It is easy and cheap to use editing and filming programs that in turn allows those with a passion for creating an opportunity to succeed. Jose Van Dijck, however, disagrees and insists we are led to believe we hold power over our content. Agency, the ability to act, is discussed in terms of power relations; Van Dijck argues that everyday users have a rather limited potential to wrest power from the few, let alone to change the way the world changes (Van Dijck, p.42). He explains that we assume there is an increase in prosumers but in fact the majority of users are primarily consumers. Through content-sharing platforms such as YouTube, we are convinced that we can make changes into the ways the content is produced. YouTube needs users to upload content as user-generated content is what makes the platform attractive; making sure most of the content is user-generated is the driving force behind the success of the idea. YouTube makes money off of the concept of promoting independent video makers, which appeals to users looking to support their peers and seek original content. Van Dijck also states, even if content is said to be user generated that does not mean that users have full control over what is produced and how it gets displayed. (p.51) YouTube s Terms of Service reads, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable licence to use, reproduce, distribute the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube s (and its successors and affiliates ) business in any media formats and through any media channels. (YouTube, Section 6.C) 2

Whenever I access YouTube, I always encounter advertisements. Even users with few videos may generate profit based on ads. This removes a certain human element from the videos; corporate control is reinforced while leading viewers to believe they are supporting the works of their peers. I view independent artists as sell outs to the corporate control of the platform; since YouTube holds power in influencing its millions of users, the ads used spread corporate influence to the public. The appeal of supporting independent artists is taken away due to the commodification of content. The ability to create, connect and share data leads to the commodification of data. While we hold control over what we consume and create, our online activities are commodified in favour of corporate agendas. The internet has allowed for everyday people to contribute content, engage in discussions and hold an extent of power in reaching out to others. With these prospects come opportunities to take advantage of the public s voice; companies such as Google are aware of the emergence of social media, which results in commodifying the voices of everyday citizens. The commodification of users and their content is the second issue that lies in the paradox of digital culture. Vincent Mosco describes commodification as the process of transforming things valued for their use into marketable products that are valued for what they can bring in exchange. (Mosco, p. 127) Resources are turned into commodities; objects once valued for their use are now valued for their worth in the marketplace (p. 132). For example, our hobbies were once activities that we enjoyed doing without an attached price. Today, our hobbies and interests are valued by social media platforms as means to target consumers. I am sent advertisements regarding the types of bands I listen to and the books I read. Mosco states there is an exchange 3

between the free labour done by users and the free services of companies such as Google and Facebook. (p. 138) When I post photos or join a group, I am working for the social media website; in exchange for the platform to do things such as communicate and connect with others, I end up working for that platform in order to earn the right to use their services. By using such platforms for connection and collaboration, we are simultaneously being fed advertisements based on our online behaviour. Trebor Scholz argues that the core sites of the social Web are using the people who contribute to them (Scholz, p. 357). All content we upload to social media websites are used to the advantages of the platform as well as third-parties for advertising purposes. Facebook s Data Use Policy states they use information collected from its users to measure or understand the effectiveness of ads [its users] and others see, including to deliver relevant ads to [its users]. (2012) I receive advertisements on Facebook that relate to the groups I join and the pages I like. The Policy states, Facebook Ads are sometimes paired with social actions your friends have taken an ad for a sushi restaurant may be paired with a news story that one of your friends likes that restaurant's Facebook page. (2012) In the past, corporations carried out manual survey research through focus groups. Through social media websites, users are the focus groups. I interpret Facebook users to be similar to guinea pigs; we are all being tested in the metaphoric laboratory that is Facebook to predict the types of products that may appeal to us. Our online activities are recorded and stored as data points that reflect on our interests that assist in guiding advertisers to us. However, a third issue arises; surveillance is carried on online which make it even easier for users to be watched, regardless of the platform. Since what we do is recorded and taken in as data points, online profiles of ourselves are formed and stored. 4

These profiles not only allow Facebook to share information of its users to third-party websites, but record details of its users personal activities. We usually do not realize this and overlook this detail, believing Facebook s motives are to connect us to our friends. It is possible to limit aspects of platforms that may threaten one s privacy; however this limits the use of platforms features. Facebook s Data Use Policy states, You can remove or block cookies or other similar technologies but it may affect your ability to use Facebook or other websites and apps. (2012) It is difficult to avoid being used for our content if we desire to use such We cannot expect to be served without paying for Facebook s services ; instead we must realize our actions are commodified in favour of Facebook making money out of us. Our private spaces now serve as commodities with the increase of the webcam subculture and social media. Andrejevic notes, Spaces associated with leisure and domestic activities do become increasingly productive from a commercial point of view, precisely because they can be more thoroughly monitored (Andrejevic, p.195). With the commodification of one s personal life, the division between work and personal life is gone. Users such as me invite Facebook into our personal lives and allow the platform record every step we take. Michel Foucault presents us with the idea that the knowledge of being potentially watched changes our behaviour. (Foucault, p. 67) This challenges the idea of freedom of expression as we begin to alter our behaviours to satisfy those in authority. It is only when I realize the underlying motives of Facebook s services the consequences of being tracked become clear. Those informed of the consequences of posting their information such as myself conceal personal aspects of their lives; I have never discussed or joined groups regarding politics online out of fear of being watched. I grew up in the Sultanate of Oman in the Middle East, which made 5

me cautious when it came to expressing my opinions online. The government internet company actively observed users online activities, so I was taught to be aware of anything I post online. This habit has remained with me, as I know that social media websites collect data about users in a similar manner to develop online profiles and identities. According to David Lyon, certain aspects of surveillance support the public in regards to safety and social order; others, however, reinforce the aspects of fear, control, suspicion and secrecy. (Lyon, p. 369) He adds that all kinds of activity, including casual chat, may be considered as suspicious it becomes far more powerful when computer-assisted. (p. 370) I have always been aware of this side to surveillance while living in Oman. From an early age, I have been advised to never criticize the government, especially online or over the telephone. In the recent years of the emergence of the internet, I have not come across any Facebook page or group that criticizes the Omani government. I have only found a blog in which the owner used an alias and a proxy and revealed government information hidden from the public. Living there, I know of the risks of being caught producing material that defies the image of the country. This in turn makes me aware of what I post online even in a democratic country such as Canada. The paradox of digital culture influences the ways in which we navigate the social media environment. We have the opportunities to express a wide scope of interests. However, one cannot expect to act freely online without the consequences of revealing one s identity or being subject to advertisements. Our lives have become dominated by social media and content-sharing websites that not only allow us to discover content within a few clicks but to also open the doors to being watched. 6

7 Nadine Saba

Bibliography Nadine Saba Andrejevic, Mark. (2004). The Webcam Subculture and the Digital Enclosure. In Couldry, N., & McCarthy, A. (Eds.). MediaSpace : place, scale, and culture in a media age. London ; New York: Routledge. Pgs. 193-208. Facebook. (2012). "Facebook." Facebook. Web. 25 Nov. 2012. http://www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policy Foucault, Michel. (2007). Panopticism In Hier, S.P. and Greenberg, J. (Eds.) The Surveillance Studies Reader. New York: McGraw Hill. 393p. Pgs. 67-75 Howe, Jeff. (2009). Introduction. Crowdsourcing: Why the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. 312p. Pgs. 1-19. Jenkins, Henry. (2004). The cultural logic of media convergence. International Journal of Cultural Studies. Vol7(1). SAGE Publications. Pgs. 33-43. 8

Lyon, David (2007). Chapter 24: Resisting Surveillance. In Hier, S.P., & Greenberg, J. (Eds.). (2007). The Surveillance Studies Reader. New York: Open University Press: McGraw Hill. 292p. Pgs. 368-377. Mosco, Vincent. (2009). Chapter 7: Commodification: Content, Audiences, Labor. The Political Economy of Communication. London, Uk: SAGE Publications. 268p. Pgs. 127-156. Scholz, Trebor. (2008). Chapter 15: Where the Activism Is. In Boler, M. (Ed.) Digital media and democracy: tactics in hard times. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Pgs. 355-365. Van Dijck, Jose. (2009) "Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated Content." Media, Culture & Society. Vol. 31(1). SAGE Publications. Pgs. 41-58. YouTube. (2010) "Terms of Service." YouTube. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. http://www.youtube.com/t/terms?hl=en 9